Letter: Nominee can’t be expected to unite country

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 | 9:05 a.m.

Democrats were the majority in the U.S. Senate for the last four presidential nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas, respectively, were nominated in 1990 and 1991 by President George H.W. Bush. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, respectively, were nominated in 1993 and 1994 by President Clinton. All of these nominees were approved, with the vote for Thomas being the closest. I don't recall any demands having been made of these presidents by anyone.

It's the president who makes the nominations, not the Senate. But now, with another nomination in view, we had Democrats threatening filibusters. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid recently said, "It's up to the president to nominate someone who will unite the country." How absurd. Uniting or dividing the country is not something that is involved in the nomination of a justice to the Supreme Court.

The function of senators in this process is to "advise and consent," and not make demands as to who fits their perspective. Reid has said the president needs to nominate a "mainstream conservative" in order to not divide the country. Reid and other liberal senators are endeavoring to bend the rules to suit their perspectives. It is my view that they need to follow the lead of what occurred in these previously mentioned nominations. It is the liberals who will control the tone of this process. If this nomination "divides" the country, it will be their doing that brings that about.

RICHARD J MUELLER

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question